Cruz to propose amendment to subject SCOTUS justices to election after 8 years

[Fuzzy Bear]

I do not support SSM.  Furthermore, I believe that yesterday's SCOTUS decision on SSM was Judicial legislating from the bench, pure and simple.

I am a rather nominal Republican, and I voted for Obama in 2012.  I'm not feeling real great about that now, as while I am a union member, I am also a committed Christian and a social conservative. 

On that basis, I may well vote for Cruz in the Republican primary next year.  I'm not sure I want him to be President, and I haven't approved with much of what he's done in the past.  But what he said on the social issues is exactly correct; the GOP will feign outrage on the latest pro-abortion, pro-SSM, anti-religion action by some branch of government, but they won't do anything to reverse it or prevent future similar actions.  I've voted for folks on that basis in the past, and I'm considering Cruz on that basis right now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That's not what the founders intended.

I agree.  But they did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the power of Judicial Review to the point where they could nullify statutes.  John Marshall took that power for the Court in MARBURY v. MADISON and we have gone along with it (even though the Constitution does not give the Court power to nullify legislation) because it is the "least worst way" to resolve issues.  Friday's decision is an example of going beyond even what John Marshall envisioned.

As for the guy who stated "What a racist plan!":  I've never said this before, but it's time for the troll to take a hike.

[Fuzzy Bear]

These next few months are going to be a fantastic exercise in the Republicans battling the crazies for the future of the party. Here's a hint - if your solution to a court ruling you don't like is to shut down the court or try to turn it into a political tool, you're one of the crazies.

Five SCOTUS Justices just made law in OBERGEFELL, just as they did in CITIZENS UNITED.  They made law.  They redefined corporations as people and they redefined marriage.  One for the left to be unhappy with and one for the right to be unhappy with.  And they have LIFETIME tenure.

Impeachment is the ONLY way to hold the SCOTUS accountable.  Personally, I believe it will send a message to the Court not to exceed the authority that was intended for it by the Founders.  Whether or not the Court gets the message, it needs to be sent.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

If just officiating a marriage implies and equates support, then I wonder what actual involvement in one of those marriages would equate. Impeach everyone but Kagan.

In truth, whether Ginsburg and Kagan officiated over a SSM ceremony before Obergefell was decided is kind of irrelevant.  They had their minds made up beforehand, and they were not interested in the facts.

They should all be impeached, and be forced to show that they did nothing more than say what the law is.  While an elected Court was not the intent of the Framers, neither was a Court that could nullify legislation and write new legislation without any precedential basis.  Which is, essentially, what they did.

And the guy who ought to be grilled the hardest is Anthony Kennedy.  Here's a guy who's a professional swing vote who will always decide for the GOP on political questions (Bush v. Gore, Obamacare, Citizens United) but always fall on the liberal side on social issues.  A Harry Blackmun without intellectual honesty, seeking to create a lasting legacy for himself. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

The ultimate irony is the folks who overturned the law and years of precedent in Citizens United are the same ones who are accusing the Majority in Obergefell of legislating from the bench. Which one is it?

Anyway, I support strengthening the institution of marriage instead of fighting a horrible fight dismissive of the happiness of an entire group of people that just want to be happy. If it takes an activist Supreme Court to reach that end, then why not?

Though, I do agree that we need elections for judges, though for completely different reasons.

Both groups are legislating from the bench.